Sunday, August 30, 2015

The Crescent on McRae is now an attractive development which appears to have been accepted by many of the neighbours who fought against it for three years.

Art Cowie's Fee-simple row houses on Cambie Street

The |Larchwood as viewed from the lane

Last Saturday I wrote a column in another publication about
the need to undertake regular ‘post-mortems’ of controversial rezoning projects
that get built, in order to see whether neighbourhood concerns actually
materialized. The article featured three Westside projects: McRae
Crescent, overlooking the intersection of Granville Street and West 16th
Avenue; “fee-simple” townhouses developed by the late Art Cowie on Cambie
Street at West 33rd Avenue; and Larchwood, a townhouse and stacked
townhouse development on Larch Street, just south of West 37th
Avenue.

Each of these projects was very controversial and took years
before being approved. However, today they are well accepted and provide much
needed housing choices.

Two of the three developments fit nicely into the
surrounding neighbourhood. Ironically the third, Cowie’s Cambie Street
townhouses, is dwarfed by a new six-storey development immediately to the north.

In writing about these developments I was not suggesting
that community concerns are never valid. On the contrary, they often are. But
it is important to recognize that oftentimes community fears are not validated
and neighbourhoods realize benefits from new housing choices.

Following publication of this story, I received messages
from many Vancouver residents and planning professionals proposing other
projects that should have been included.

Planner Lance Berelowitz reminded me of architect Bruce Haden’s
Koo Corner project in Strathcona. It received opposition from neighbours and the
city’s planning department which almost turned it down. Today the city features
the development in their EcoDensity and Greenest City promotional material.

The most frequently mentioned project was Sasamat Gardens along
West 8th at Sasamat.

For more
than thirty years, this half city block, owned by the O’Hagan family, sat
vacant.

In 1996, rather
than subdivide the land into 22 single family lots, Fred O’Hagan hired architect
Roger Hughes to plan a comprehensive development including townhouses and small
apartments catering to empty nesters and seniors seeking alternative
accommodation in their community.

A 1998 survey revealed that 86% of West Point Grey residents were
opposed to anything other than single family lots.The plans were modified, including
elimination of the low-rise apartments, and the development was ultimately
approved.Today, nearby residents like Fred Veuger wish there were more ground
oriented housing choices like Sasamat Gardens available for West Point Grey
residents seeking an alternative to their single family homes, but not yet
ready for an apartment. He is not alone.

It is hard to see Oak Gardens at West 42 and Oak Street.

I was also reminded of two of my own developments; one on
Oak Street and the other on West 41st Avenue. Anyone driving today along the west side of Oak Street
between West 42nd and 43rd will find it hard to believe
that the three storey apartment building hidden behind the trees was once the scene
of a major community battle. Designed by NSDA, the 1992 proposal was to rezone four
single family lots to allow a four storey seniors’ apartment building catering
to those wanting to downsize in a location close to the Jewish Community
Centre, Louis Brier Home and Hospital, and Kaplan’s Delicatessen.

Neighbours objected to the height claiming it was out of
scale with the nearby bungalows. They also feared significant traffic and
parking problems. Eventually the project was approved but at a reduced height
and with much more parking. Today the bungalows are gone, replaced by larger homes. Many
of the building’s parking spaces sit empty, and you can barely see the building.

Elsewhere along Oak Street new four storey developments
provide popular housing choices for those who cannot afford, or do not want a
single family house.

The
Lanesborough: once described by Councillor George Puil as intrusive and
obscene and comparable to the then ugly blank wall of Eatons

A similar story can be told about my 1997 proposal for
low-rise seniors’ apartments on West 41st Avenue between Carnarvon
and Balaclava. In a Courier article
by Alison Appelbe, Councillor George Puil called the NSDA designed building
“intrusive and obscene” and compared it to Eaton’s ugly blank white wall. Nearby
residents predicted traffic and parking problems and a loss of character. Some
even claimed the predominance of families with children in the area made the
location unsuitable for seniors’ housing. Fortunately
it was approved and subsequently developed by Polygon Homes.

Now
highly regarded in the community, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the
Eaton’s wall, which ironically is now gone-replaced by architect James Cheng’s
elegant Nordstrom store.

Now
that the landscaping is growing in, this development at West 16th and
Granville is much more accepted by the Shaughnessy neighbourhood

Every time I drive by Granville Street
and West 16th Avenue in Shaughnessy, I think about the three-year battle that
preceded approval of the attractive townhouse development overlooking the
intersection.

I have similar thoughts driving by
Cambie Street and West 33rd, Larch Street just south of West 39 Avenue, and the
2000 block Esquimalt in West Vancouver.

In each location, neighbourhood
residents vigorously opposed projects that are now completed and occupied. They
could offer important lessons on how best to deal with neighbourhood concerns
related to future developments.

The Shaughnessy townhouses were
designed by James Bussey of Formwerks Architecture and developed by Arthur Bell
Holdings.

At the time, some residents feared
city approval would encourage future townhouses and highrise buildings
threatening the character of historic Shaughnessy. They also worried the
project would increase noise, traffic and stress levels.

Not everyone opposed the development.
Since it included restoration of the historic Nichol Mansion, the Vancouver
Heritage Commission congratulated the developer for trying to save an important
heritage building.

When the property’s trees were first
cut down and construction began, I, too, worried about the project. I suggested
to the developer that he put up an illustration to show what the completed
development would look like, so neighbouring residents would not lose any more
sleep.

Fast forward to today. The landscaping
has grown in. Along with many Shaughnessy residents, I no longer have the same
concerns. The development is an attractive and appropriate design for the site,
offering new housing choices for nearby residents.

Moreover, concerns about future
highrises and a loss of neighbourhood character are unlikely to materialize
since city council is now expected to approve a heritage strategy for
Shaughnessy that will save all pre-1940s housing in the neighbourhood.

Developer Brian Bell is also happy
with how the project turned out and pleased that, as he predicted, many homes
sold to local residents impressed with the project’s quality and attention to
detail.

Art Cowie's fee-simple row houses as viewed along Cambie Street

Sadly, planner and developer Art Cowie
never lived to see his dream project at West 33rd and Cambie completed. He died
during construction. However, his name will always be associated with the three
fee-simple rowhouses council eventually approved on what was once a
single-family-zoned property.

Ironically, his once-controversial
development, which also included rental coach houses above the garages, is now
dwarfed by a six-storey building to the north and other mid-rise buildings up
and down Cambie.

Cowie’s fee-simple townhouses are
significant in that they are not condominiums. Each is individually owned,
like a single-family home, with no strata fees.

One of his challenges in getting
approval was the city’s Law Department, which worried about the legality of the
proposed agreement for the shared party wall between units.

To address this legal concern, Cowie
eventually had to build two separate walls. However, Suzanne Anton, then a city
councillor, recognized the importance of this type of housing and convinced the
province to change legislation to facilitate more individually owned townhouses
in the future.

Larchwood, as viewed from the lane

On Larch
Street, just south of St Mary's Church on West 39th Avenue is a
development that seems to fit seamlessly with the surrounding Kerrisdale
‘Craftsman-style’ homes.

Completed in 2000, it
replaced seven single family lots with forty-five new townhomes ranging in size
from one to three bedrooms. Some were planned to appeal to young families;
others incorporated features that would be attractive to seniors. Designed by Ramsay Warden Architects and
developed by Intracorp, the development also included a full restoration of an
existing heritage home.Planning consultant Charles Brook recalls
that the initial proposal was furiously opposed by many neighbouring single
family homeowners, but supported by nearby high-rise residents seeking
alternative housing choices, and empty nesters ready to downsize in their
Kerrisdale neighbourhood.

Since the City of Vancouver had no policy to
allow rezonings in Kerrisdale, planning staff recommended the project be
approved as a neighbourhood demonstration project, an effective way to test out
a new planning concept.

Eventually all but one member of city
council agreed and today the development serves an attractive model of how low
density townhouses and stacked townhouses can be integrated into single family
neighbourhoods, away from busy arterial roads.

Today Hollyburn Mews in the 2000 Block of Esquimalt has been well-accepted by the surrounding West Vancouver neighbourhood

In West Vancouver, a five-year battle
preceded approval of six duplex homes and three coach houses on three
single-family lots across from West Vancouver United Church.

Over 150 people wrote letters in
opposition or spoke at the multiple-night public hearing. However, some local
residents were in favour and eventually the project — one of my own — was
approved by a narrow four-to-three council vote.

To improve the neighbourhood fit, each pair of duplexes was designed to
look like a large house. Unlike Vancouver’s laneway houses, the coach houses
were sold; one to a household with young children and the others to seniors
wanting to downsize.

Today, many planners and residents
have said they consider the Formwerks-designed Hollyburn Mews to be a good
model of in-fill housing and gentle densification, and one that has application
around the province.

The City of Kelowna recently included
it in a planning document illustrating how new low-rise housing can be
successfully integrated into single family neighbourhoods.

These case studies are not intended to
say that neighbourhood concerns over rezoning applications are never valid. On
the contrary, they often are.

However, in order to better assess the
validity of these concerns, it could be very valuable if planners,
neighbourhood organizations, and perhaps journalists carried out post-mortems
on controversial projects that did get built, in order to determine whether the
concerns materialized.

Is the building out of scale and
character? Did nearby property values drop as feared? Were there neighbourhood
traffic and parking problems?

Ongoing reviews of controversial
projects might help us all gain a better understanding of what to watch out for
in neighbourhood plans and rezoning applications.This in turn will help us accommodate future
changing housing needs in our communities.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Last week I
met Dr. Paul Kershaw, a most interesting young man wearing red shoes.

He claims to
be a farmer by morning and night, but by day he is a UBC professor in the Faculty
of Medicine’s School of Population and Public Health, and one of Canada’s top
thinkers about generational equity.

What is
generational equity, you ask?

For the best answer, I recommend the website of
Generation Squeeze www.gensqueeze.ca the campaign he started in 2011 to encourage
Canadians 25 to 45 to become more politically engaged and increase their
influence on future government policies.

He wants them to become a lobby group, like the
Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) which promotes
and protects the interests, rights and quality of life for those of usover 50.

Why does he
call it Generation Squeeze? Because this
younger generation is increasingly squeezed by excessive student debt, a
shortage of good work opportunities, expensive childcare costs, anxiety about
mounting public debts, and of course, the exorbitant cost of housing.

Kershaw likes to point out that governments spend less than $12,000 on
benefits and services per Canadian under 45, compared to more than $33,000 for
every retiree. He notes that to compete for better employment
opportunities, Generation Squeeze has to spend significantly more time and
money than their parents’ generation to get an education.

To buy a
home, they accept jobs or contracts that require years to save a down payment.
For many, this means waiting longer to move out of parents’ homes, or to
establish financial independence.

I suspect
that many of you know exactly what he’s talking about.

I met with
Kershaw to discuss the Generation Squeeze Housing Policy.

He wants to
see more municipalities build affordability targets into municipal bylaws
through what’s often termed inclusionary zoning. While this is happening in
Vancouver and other jurisdictions, it is by no means widespread. He would
also like to see a return of federal tax incentives for builders and owners of
long-term, purpose-built rental housing.On this he is not alone.

He is rightly
concerned about the future of affordable housing on leased public land. This
includes aging developments along the south shore of False Creek, in Champlain
Heights and the Fraser Lands, and thousands of other sites scattered across the
country.

Kershaw
would also like to see provincial governments adjust the property transfer tax
so that first time Canadian buyers can be exempted from the tax for properties
priced below the metropolitan median value. He would also
like municipal governments to reduce municipal fees and taxes on residential
properties priced below the municipal median value. More expensive properties would
pay a progressively higher percentage of tax.

He would
like to see a doubling of the federal government’s first-time home buyers’ tax
credit, an idea he presented to Stephen Harper in Ottawa, with little success.
However, he and Harper do agree on one thing, namely the need to monitor the
flow of foreign investment, perhaps by attaching a residency declaration in
land transfer documents.

In addition,
he would like governments to subsidize childcare so households with young
children would have more money to spend on housing.

While these may
all seem like good ideas, especially to younger Canadians, a key question is
how to pay for these programs. Kershaw told
me he does not want to pit generations against one another. He maintains we need to narrow the generational
spending gap only slightly, adding his ideas would raise
government spending per Canadian under age 45 from $12,000 to $13,000, while maintaining
spending around $33,000 per retiree.

While this may
seem like voodoo economics, he argues one way to free up money for the younger
generation is by addressing healthcare costs. Today 50 cents of every medical
care dollar goes to the 15 per cent of the population over 65. He proposes
we reduce spending by creating a more cost-effective health care system; one
that focusses more on prevention than on cure.

Remember, he
works in the Faculty of Medicine.

Kershaw is
urging those 25 to 45 to sign up and be part of GenSqueeze. But you don’t have
to be under 50 to join. If you agree with his sentiments, you might want to
sign up too. I already have.

Some
Westside Vancouver residents were recently shocked to see large red and black
signs posted around their neighbourhoods announcing the recommencing of CPR railway
operations. They were
warned not to stop on tracks, obey flag persons and call 3-1-1 for information.

The signs
were installed by the City of Vancouver at the request of Transport Canada.

For those
not quite sure why active railway traffic will soon be running along the
Arbutus Corridor, allow me to offer some background, and a potential solution
to end the longstanding impasse between CP and the city.

The 11 km
long Arbutus Corridor was given to CP Rail in 1886 and the first rail line was
built in 1902 to move cargo and passenger trains. By 1999,
train operations were limited to serving the Molson brewery and the company
began plans to redevelop the land into a mix of residential and commercial
uses.

To prevent this from happening, in
July 2000 the city enacted the Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan that
designated the land for transportation, parks, and greenways only.

CP
subsequently took the city to court arguing that the city had effectively taken
its property without compensation. However, the city won since it generally has
the right to zone land in the public interest.

Five years
later, CP initiated a planning exercise that included participation from four
neighbourhoods- Kitsilano, Arbutus Ridge/Shaughnessy, Kerrisdale and
Marpole-through which the rail line runs. Stanley
King, a local planner who has a magical ability to illustrate what people are
saying was brought in, along with an advisory panel that included Nola-Kate
Seymoar, president of the International Centre for Sustainable Cities. Mark
Holland, a respected sustainability planner, UBC’s Patrick Condon, and former
NDP premier Mike Harcourt I attended some
of the deliberations as a past director of the International Centre for
Sustainable Cities.

Eventually a
report was prepared that argued against using the lands solely for a greenway
with bike paths and walkways because, despite meeting certain sustainability
principles, this was not financially sustainable. Moreover, it did not include green
buildings and infrastructure, or diverse housing choices, all of which are key
tenets of sustainable planning.

The
preferred plan envisioned maintaining a continuous transit corridor, with mixed-use
development at key nodes including Kerrisdale Village, where the corridor is
flanked by city streets on two sides, and around 33rd, 16th and other
major arterials.

In response
to those who question whether it is possible to retain a transit corridor
through development, you might be interested to know there are two transit
corridors reserved through Coal Harbour’s Bayshore development; one above
ground and one below ground.

By combining CP’s land with the city’s land,
the planners concluded it was possible to create significant value for CP, which
in turn would allow the city to acquire the balance of the corridor for next to
nothing. However, shortly thereafter, the city
successfully fought against any development along the corridor after the Supreme
Court of Canada upheld the previous municipal bylaw that restricted the
right-of-way’s use to a greenway and car-free transportation corridor.

Fast forward
to summer 2014.

After the
city and CP failed to agree on a fair market price for the property, CP
threatened to start running trains along the line and insisted that community
gardens and other public use cease immediately. This time
the city took the railway to court, but lost.

In a subsequent
letter to neighbourhood residents, the president of CP wrote:

“For many
years now, CP has been involved in conversations to convert the Arbutus
Corridor for a number of combined public uses, such as a greenway, public
transportation, community gardens and Eco Density development. Despite our
efforts, the company and other parties have been unable to achieve a plan for
the disposition of this valuable asset.”

If you would
like to speak to those “other parties” just dial 3-1-1.

Tell the
city it’s time to agree on a plan preserving a transit corridor, along with a
mix of public amenities and sustainable development. This will make much more
sense than watching trains going forward and backward while lawyers argue in
court.